Hold Congress Accountable

About FreedomConnector

Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!

Blog

Democrats Reveal Their Contempt for Voters on Campaign Finance

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling eliminating aggregate caps on the amount of money individual donors can contribute to political campaigns is an important victory for free speech. While caps on donations to individual campaigns remain in place, this ruling offers hope that they too may soon be recognized as unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment.

Progressives, naturally, are in a rage. For years they have been funneling vast amounts of money into politics through labor unions, circumventing campaign finance laws. Now that this advantage has been taken away from them, they are quick to cry foul.

The arguments as to why people shouldn’t be able to give as much money as they like to political campaigns has always been a bit murky. From the Court’s perspective, the caps have historically been justified by the need to prevent corruption and ensure that individuals were not bribing candidates to do their bidding once elected. While this is an understandable concern, I can’t seem to remember where in the First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except to prevent potential corruption.”

A more common complaint from the left, however, relates not to corruption of individual politicians, but accusations of Republicans trying to buy elections and subverting the democratic process. Senate candidates like Mark Begich and Kay Hagan have made this argument in reference to the 2010 Citizens United case that lifted restrictions on campaign spending by outside groups.

This is puzzling. When I vote, it is for the candidate whose ideas I like best, not the one who ran the most ads or had the fanciest campaign bus or spent the most on yard signs. While these efforts are undeniably important for increasing name recognition and voter awareness, they will not ultimately convince me to vote for a candidate I dislike. I suspect that, if pressed, most of those who complain about money in politics would admit that they do the same. Is a committed leftist likely to be tricked into voting for a conservative Republican because of the amount of money he spends? It seems unlikely.

This fuss, then, about “buying elections” is really an indictment on other people’s voting habits. The smug, self-righteous internet commentators are clear in their contempt for the average voter, an individual they regard as incapable of distinguishing between candidates except as a result of advertising and expensive glitz.

It’s an insulting caricature that reveals how little Democrats actually value democracy. If the voters are simply sheep, being steered by the crook of campaign finance towards one candidate or another, then there can be no point in discussing ideas, philosophies, or principles. Instead, they are just upset that they may not be as effective shepherds as their opponents.

I take a different view. I trust voters to be persuadable, as well as capable of making educated decisions at the ballot box. If we have learned anything from the success of the tea party, and the failure of well-funded, but inauthentic candidates like Mitt Romney, it is that ideas, not cash, are what really matters in politics.

No amount of money can force someone to vote for a candidate they don’t like and don’t trust, just as corporations cannot force customers to buy their products or to work for them. Such coercion remains the sole province of government. On the other hand, individuals should be free to do with their money what they choose, including lending support to people who they believe will best represent their interests in Congress. That is how the democratic process is supposed to work, and it is what true freedom of expression looks like.

The Supreme Court made the right decisions in this case, and the result will be freer and more open participation in democracy, not the sort of wholesale brainwashing of the electorate that progressives seem to fear. If their opinion of voters is really that low, I hope that, come November, the feeling will be mutual.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA was unreasonable when it did not consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the EPA must consider costs, including compliance costs, when deciding whether a regulation is appropriate and necessary.

The newly handed-down Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has garnered a great deal of debate. The 6-3 vote in favor of the administration does nothing to fix the unworkable flaws that remain and continue to largely define Obamacare. No matter the lens used to view the ACA, the prognosis is bad.

Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the meaning and purpose of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows for the use of eminent domain for “public use,” such as a road. But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take property from a private citizen for purposes other than a public use.

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.

And the week-long spotlight on ObamaCare’s fifth anniversary keeps rolling right along! Passing the ACA was no easy feat, and Democrats had to make all sorts of outlandish promises to voters and politicians alike in order to advance the president’s government takeover of health care.

On multiple occasions over the last few years, President Barack Obama has reminded voters that he won't appear on the ballot again. Indeed, our long national nightmare will come to an end in 674 days. Presidents, of course, tend to engage on policy and politics even after they leave the White House. There's no reason to believe Obama will be any different.

The average American commits three felony crimes a day, and, more often than not, doesn't even know they've run afoul of criminal statutes. In 2009, Harvey Silverglate published a book, Three Felonies A Day, that highlighted the absurdity of over-criminalization made possible by an endless string of federal laws.

On the morning of March 4th, conservative activists from FreedomWorks and elsewhere braved the decidedly raw D.C. weather to make sure their voices were heard on King v. Burwell. As the case was argued inside the Supreme Court, activists who were outside heard from FreedomWorks’ Executive Vice President Adam Brandon, other conservative leaders, and Representatives Gohmert, Blackburn, and Heulskamp.

This title was adopted from a line by Justice Sotomayor during the recent Supreme Court oral arguments in Rodriguez v. United States. Over time there has been an encroachment on our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, as Justice Sotomayor also said, “. . . we can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement.” It is time for the courts to push back and protect our constitutional rights. Fortunately, two recent cases, one at the Supreme Court and another at the circuit level, have given great opportunities to do just this.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments for the King v. Burwell case starting March 4th, with a decision likely to come down sometime in June. The Court’s decision will determine whether the IRS’ illegal implementation of ObamaCare subsidies to states that refused to set up insurance exchanges can continue. If not, the true cost of ObamaCare will be revealed to the American public, a cost that has until now been partially concealed by the IRS’ decision to circumvent the written law.